Awards

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Whether or not Ron Paul actually said that he would not intervene to stop the Holocaust, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about this position. The United States has never intervened to stop a genocide. Not in WW2 and not since when several genocides have taken place, most notably in Africa, without any military intervention.

The United States did participate in two NATO wars justified with phony claims of genocide, but the only ethnic cleansings that have taken place have been of Serbs from Kosovo and of Africans from Libya. Which is to say the closest thing to a genocide in either case was perpetrated by our allies against the people we were bombing on their behalf in two civil wars. And neither of those rise anywhere near the level of genocide.

We have maintained close ties with two genocidal Muslim states, Turkey and Indonesia. The latter conducted genocide against Christians in East Timor on our watch and with our weapons. Obama's Indonesian stepfather was a likely participant in that genocide, his former Director of National Intelligence helped keep it going. And Obama has been on record opposing any intervention in Sudan.

It is doubtful that any American president would have intervened militarily to stop the Holocaust, with the possible exception of George W. Bush, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Ron Paul can't be given credit for much, but his response is honest if nothing else. Or at least partly honest. It's more likely that he is actually sympathetic to another party in the conflict. His newsletter where he blames Churchill for prolonging WW2 by not letting the USSR and Nazi Germany "fight it out" suggests as much. It's an echo of similar themes put out by Pat Buchanan and other fellow travelers.

But this really isn't about him. The question of whether we should be intervening to stop genocide is virtually irrelevant because it's not something we do. Holocaust education has very little to do with the mass murder of the Jews of Europe and a great deal to do with teaching tolerance. The genocide doctrine employed by modern administrations has nothing to do with the Holocaust either, it has a great deal to do with dressing up the wars that our leaders decided they wanted to fight anyway.

WWI had enough grandiose claims made about it to make you think that it was the ultimate war against evil. WWII where there actually were monsters on the side, not just Prussian stuffed shirts with curled mustaches, must have caught the propagandists by surprise. But had Hitler's minions practiced eugenics and killed ethnic minorities, there would have been no war. The initial response to Hitler was that he was stabilizing an unstable country. It was only when Hitler insisted on destabilizing the region with grandiose ambitions that war became inevitable.

Stability is the reason why we began bombing Libya. Not because Gaddafi was guilty of genocide, but because Western diplomats and the assorted grab bag of elites had decided that democracy was the way forward in the Middle East. And the dictators who were blocking the way forward had to go. Gaddafi's crime wasn't that his troops were raping and murdering their way through the opposition. Raping and murdering your way through the opposition is a time honored practice of Muslim rulers.

The trouble with Gaddafi was that he stood in the way of plans to "stabilize the region". That also happens to be Israel's crime. And stability means fitting into the regional order and not making too many waves. When Hitler was rolling out workers rights and grandiose national spectacles then he was fitting into the European future. Oswald Mosley, the fellow who would become the bugbear of English socialists, started out as a radical socialist, until his approach fell out of step.

It might be nice if we actually avoided wars except when dealing with threats or mass murdering lunatics, but plenty of the former and the latter have thrived on our watch. If we actually fought wars to deal with threats then the Saudis wouldn't be stuffing their faces with lamb stew while counting their rolls of money and rolls of fat. And if we actually dealt with mass murdering regimes, then the Butcher of Khartoum wouldn't be laughing while his troops wipe out another African village.

After World War II when we began actively intervening to push back threatening ideologies our wars on occasion had a certain amount of substance. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and Afghanistan were arguably in our national interest. That was more than could be said for when we were clearing the way for UN aid workers or creating a Muslim state in Yugoslavia or protecting the fat Kuwaiti merchants from being looted by Saddam's kinfolk.

Saddam arguably engaged in genocide, and didn't have to worry about being bombed. It was only when he stepped on the toes of some of our oily friends that the bombs began to fall. And when our Kuwaiti friends got back their dominion courtesy of the United States Marines, their first order of business was ethnically cleansing the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who had sided with Saddam. The response from the Bush Administration Mark I, which was quite fixated in its own way on the "peace process" was to shrug its shoulders and treat it as business as usual.

There's something noble about the idea of the United States Marines coming forward when some dictator decides to wipe out a few million people. It's what most Americans think their country does. But that idea is also completely detached from reality. We don't do it and we aren't about to start doing it. Which is why keeping things like Right 2 Protect around is a dangerous thing. It provides ammunition for the amoral likes of Obama and Clinton to fight their Post-American wars for their Post-American reasons.

The situation in the American Jewish community is even worse. The lessons of the Holocaust could not be any more lost on American Jewish leaders than if they had actually traveled in time from 1929 and were still enthusiastic about the prospects of the League of Nations for bringing world peace. Somehow the lesson taken away from the mass murder of six million Jews is not that survival is precarious, but that it's important to teach everyone to get along.

Israeli Jews, who are trying to survive a region ruled by a totalitarian ideology that is every bit as murderous as Islam, are constantly told that their survival efforts make them as bad as the Nazis. If they were really committed to peace then they would be out there offering up the Sudetenland of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem to the Nazis, and doing it more enthusiastically and with more feeling than they have up till now.

The real crime of those obnoxious Israelis isn't that they are oppressing anyone, but they are out of step with Realpolitik and with the syrupy liberal arguments used to clothe the brutal insanity of that Realpolitik in the veneer of ethics and morality. And whatever defenses of Israel are voiced they always fall short because they have nothing to do with either issue. The issue that Israel is out of step with the regional ambitions of the Arab Muslim majority and the pious suicide drive of the West.

Israel is doing its part. Tel Aviv is overrun with African migrants. Half the country is overrun with terrorists. A sizable percentage of its Arab Muslim citizens hardly pay any taxes and obey only the laws that they want to obey with no one to tell them otherwise. A nation that's hardly the size of Rhode Island has given up three times its own size in territory in the name of peace, without actually receiving any peace in return. But that's not enough.

The genocide doctrine was not about doing what's right, but about doing what's wrong. The aftermath of World War II didn't lead to a renewal of the rights of small nations but their acquisition and submergence into regional and global orders. Israel is a pariah within the regional and the global order for that simple reason. It is out of step with the United Nations, the European Union and the great progressive dreams of rolling all of mankind into some massive authority. The Great Daddy.

Our genocide interventions have been about the agenda of the international order. At the United Nations the nations that resisted Communism and Islam have been victimized. From Taiwan to Israel, the balance of power falls on the side of the powerful. The false lessons of Nazism have come down to quashing nations and empowering regional alliances to resist the "Rogue States" who fall outside the order. Nationalism is the foe, internationalism is the ally.

This hasn't prevented genocide, it has enabled it. Sudan is free to commit genocide so long as it has the support of the Arab League. The Arab Muslim majority which perpetrates genocide is protected by the Arab Muslim majority which has the influence and the wealth to make genocide possible. The obscene inversion of the international response to Nazi atrocities was to create a system that makes them possible and even profitable.

The Holocaust happened because the Nazis weren't killing anyone that people really cared about. That is the same reason why genocide in Sudan has taken place. No one really cared. And why should they? The people being raped and murdered aren't the way forward for a United Europe or an Arab Awakening or any grandiose philosophy of a better and more federalized world. They're simply people. The kind of people that the genocide doctrine was supposed to protect, but whose extermination it has actually enabled.

34
comments:

I haven't obtained the acumen to pierce through the dust and smoke to see what you've articulated, but having read the description you've given, I must conclude your explanation is as rational a conclusion as any I've heard to this point. There appears to be no consistency of military involvement in world affairs unless it both stabilizes the region and benefits the nation sponsoring the military action. The exception has been Israel, I mean as far as benevolent military action from an outside source. Even that was far belated and if Israel hadn't stood on their own, they would not exist today.

What is hateful to you, don't do to others; you;d think it was simple.

That last sentence is so chilling, little do a united europe know that an Arab Hegemony would lead to killing of the indigenous Europeans/Brits who the caliphate won't care about if they "walk out of step" from an Arab State Authoritarianism

"The situation in the American Jewish community is even worse. The lessons of the Holocaust could not be any more lost on American Jewish leaders than if they had actually traveled in time from 1929 and were still enthusiastic about the prospects of the League of Nations for bringing world peace. Somehow the lesson taken away from the mass murder of six million Jews is not that survival is precarious, but that it's important to teach everyone to get along."

Depressing as f***.

The only thing I disagree with is the last line. After reading Ben Hecht, Israel Eldad, Edwin Black, and Cornwell it becomes more and more clear that it wasn't just "people no one cared about" but "people everyone quietly wanted dead".

This is why I've never been able to go along with Satmar ideology. I like everything they do, including the kidnapping you objected so much to (technically the grandfather was Breslov and asked the Satmar to hide his grandson, not the Neturei Karta).

But who are they kidding? It's obvious that everyone in power wanted to see us dead and that every attempt to stop the disaster failed for that reason. If their ideas were so effective then why did it fail so miserably when it counted in 1938? And what the hell is so different about their situation now then it was in the 1920's?

It's very nice to say the Anglo controlled West will protect us if we act like good little court Jews. But we were acting like good little court Jews, and it was precisely the Anglo controlled West that made sure the Hungarian Jews didn't have a chance of getting rescued. **

So how in the world can I continue with the old way when the old way was such a disaster? And that's not even getting into the obvious necessity for a son of Israel to live in Israel. To say it's the same as any other land from a religious perspective is clearly nonsense.

When I have svara, do I need a kra?

On the other hand, I can easily see them making the same objections I've made to our masters in exile to the Israeli government. To which I can only reply: if it's all shit, then it's still better to live and die on your own soil.

Personally, while I see where they are coming from, I'd rather they'd have made a 100 Kiryat Yoels in Israel. Just having more of those crazy bastards around would improve the entire country tremendously.

**Another good book to read is "A Fire Within" by Amon Bunim which details a second attempt to rescue the Hungarian Jews.

I think the biggest mistake made since the end of WWII is to believe that the Nazis were defeated and went away. They weren't and they hold power now, and I believe their goal is to make the world judenrein and weissrein.

What needs to be explained is that Hiltler's National Socialism is firmly rooted in the philosophies of Karl Marx. It is the ideology of the left, the same ideology that is held by those who hold power now.

"The United States did participate in two NATO wars justified with phony claims of genocide, but the only ethnic cleansings that have taken place have been of Serbs from Kosovo...."

Objectively false. I was a Bosnia peacekeeper and I'm here to tell you that ethnic cleansing AND genocide were realities in the gangster state we call the "Entity or the Republika Srpska" (the Serb half of Bosnia). The President of Serbia, Radovan Karadzic, declared a war of genocide on the floor of the Bosnian parliament in 1992, and his thugs started shooting peaceful protestors the next day. Furthermore, Srebrenica, the apotheosis of Serb policy against Bosniacs ("Bosnian Muslims", who are about as Islamic as a pork chop) was genocide and its perpetrators have gone to prison for that crime.

While some ethnic cleansing has happened in Kosovo, it does not compare to the crimes against humanity by Serbia in Bosnia. Kindly get your facts straight. (And please, *don't* suck up to Serb nationalists. They are *not* your friends.)

Another great mistake that the world has made,was to believe that thecommunism has ended with the removal of the Berlin Wall. It only allowed to spread the facism/communism, in short, progressivism ,worldwide. Just read the Earth Charter, the Super Daddy wet dream and let me reintroduce you to the Great Toad, Gorbachev!

It's very nice to say the Anglo controlled West will protect us if we act like good little court Jews. But we were acting like good little court Jews, and it was precisely the Anglo controlled West that made sure the Hungarian Jews didn't have a chance of getting rescued.

I'm not a believer in Satmar philosophy, but you are misrepresenting their ideas (or their interpretation of the ideas of the Talmudic Sages) if you secularize them this way. The essence of the concept of the "three oaths" is that rebellion against the nations is considered rebellion against G-d, but it certainly is not the only form of such rebellion. In short, the Satmar position is something like, "be subservient to the nations and observe the Torah, and things will go well." Is it right? Has it been tried?

The Egyptians with a Coptic background have no future in Egypt and this is fine with America Babylon as was the Darfur genocide under George 'Skull n' Bones' Bush.

Those who only look on the natural always miss the spiritual dimension to this Global Tower of Babel part 2, Final Chapter and the Chief Enemy of Israel who is behind the curtain starting all the fires because of his hatred for God.

Lucifer the Dragon,aka allah wants to destroy the Israel of God and assumes if he can do it that God is defeated.

That will never happen !

The Great Daddy Dragon

'And the dragon was enraged with the woman,(ISRAEL) and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.'

1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

12bWoe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”

13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child.

YOu were there from 200-2002. You could not have possibly been witness to atrocities alleged to have occurred in the '90s. Doesn't mean they didn't occur, only that you're being in country in 200 -2002 doesn't give you any first hand knowledge. There is sufficient evidence to conclude, that, while atrocities did occur, on both sides, the alleged genocide was simply a pretext for military operations just as the accusations against Qaddaffi were justification for an attack on him. The point of the article remains valid regardless of your time in country.

I agree completely with your article, but you have certainly given a more theoretical background than I am capable of.

However, where I feel that you haven't gone far enough is concerning what a Jew is to do in practicle terms when faced with the situation stated by “Some dude”: ‘it becomes more and more clear that it wasn't just "people no one cared about" but "people everyone quietly wanted dead".’

What I feel is necessary may be a last desperate stand that leads to genocide, but so will doing nothing. Jews must acquire weapons, and fight armed against the goyim. The nations will not protect us any more that they did during the Nazi era. True, there was some help given during the Shoah, such as by Denmark and Sweden, but given their activity now, can we really expect that to happpen again? Judging by the UN, we can expect that most of the world would like to see Israel destroyed, and as for the Jews, who cares.

We may rely on the covenant which Hashem made with us that the Jewish people would never be destroyed, but it is incumbent upon us to do what we can to preserve our people. Or at least to cost our persecutors a price for trying to destroy us. Let us never again enter our enemies gas chambers like sheep to the slaughter.

So Satan isn't actively opposed to any others? Only Christians are god-fearing? Only Christians seek the divine? Please. Perhaps it would be wise to engage ones mind before inserting your foot firmly in your mouth?

Believers in Christianity can assert that Christianity's destruction is Satan's primary concern but surely Satan is an equal opportunity adversary.

"Israel is doing its part. Tel Aviv is overrun with African migrants. Half the country is overrun with terrorists. A sizable percentage of its Arab Muslim citizens hardly pay any taxes and obey only the laws that they want to obey with no one to tell them otherwise. A nation that's hardly the size of Rhode Island has given up three times its own size in territory in the name of peace, without actually receiving any peace in return. But that's not enough."

And therein lies the heart of the problem.

Any nation which relies upon others for security is assuming the posture of victim. And victims are the natural prey of the predator.

Until the great majority of Israeli's see the problem clearly and once again live the motto of "never again" with its willingness to meet violence with greater violence, (something they've abandoned) they will continue to try to appease the Islamic monster.

As appeasement is all that the 'victim' has to offer the predator. The path of appeasement always leads to dhimmitude, which leads to cultural/physical genocide.

This seems to be true on a smaller scale as well: if you want to quietly bring a knife or a bomb onto a plane, that's ok, just make sure you don't cause a disturbance.

We can't go to war everywhere, but can't we at least feel outraged? I've only recently become aware of what's been going on in North Korea -- and that thanks only to a link in a comment on this blog. Mass starvation throughout the nineties? Prison camps reminiscent of Auschwitz, where children are born prisoners for life? Explain to me why none of this is considered newsworthy, even on a slow day. Seems even when it comes to human interest, some humans (Palestinian refugees or American losers) are of more interest than others.

Paul,The woman is Israel who gives us the Messiah and the twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel.

Your ignorance is typical of those who forget their roots.(Romans 11)

You should take the time to read Ephesians 2: 11-12

'1 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.'

Snark degrades you Sultan, after the Kusari kingdom was wiped out, that strategy was the only realistic strategy. Who knows? Maybe the Satmar are actually right? It would be arrogant and stupid to simply dismiss their views. Even if they are wrong, it is still better for us to take their views seriously. It will keep us aware of the dangers. Something the peaceniks seem to have forgotten.

Go and talk to any Satmar hasid, see if any of them agree with this shit suicide pact known as "Oslo". They are quite vocal about how idiotic it is.

The difference is that in 1938 our beloved brother decided to declare open season on us. Once that happened, it became impossible for many of us to continue the old way. Especially now that the land was finally open to us.

I've been very fair to them, and I have done nothing but show them respect.

I did not focus on that Gemara, for two reasons.

1. This is a secular blog with a strong judaic influence. One has to be mindful of the audience.

2. The Rambam makes it clear that the messiah is coming back using arms. The proponents of the quote you cited seem to hold the opposite view, namely no arms at all. Which leads me to conclude that they are at odds with the Rambam regarding the three oaths. I'll stick with the Rambam on this one, thank you very much.

Before you respond to me saying that when the "Messiah comes it will be different", let me point out that the title of "Moshiach" comes AFTER the job is done. NOT BEFORE. In every generation there is a man who is meant to do the job. He doesn't get the credit until he actually does it.

And if you tell me that the community will know who the Moshiah is by ruah hakodesh, then I will point out that by tradition we know that the Abarbanel was supposed to fulfill that role in his time, and because he was not supported, the people were punished to enjoy the glorious compassionate hospitality of the Spaniards whom they wished to live among. They repaid us very thoroughly for all the good we did them over the thousand plus years of our history in their country.

It's not stark. I'm being quite literal. We have tried it for quite a bit.

Their views on Israel quite often sound like the American left on America, where everything was the fault of Zionist provocation. It's always wonderful when Ashkenazi European Jews begin lecturing on how we could be at peace with the Arabs if not for the Tzionim.

That doesn't cover all of them, but like much of that world they haven't adapted to a post-European world, either in America or anywhere else.

PC and multiculturalism has allowed the sacrifice of millions of Christians in Sudan. I call it a human sacrifice on the altar of PC. I never though that such a genocide would take place in the 20th century. It took place because Western powers were terrified of being accused of siding with Christians. MoralCowardice. A similar situation has been happened in Iraq, where one was much more likely to get protection from the Coalition Authority for a Muslim then a Christian. The result is that the oldest Christian community in Iraq, is now finished.

@marcelThe Church teaches the following as per St. Lawrence of Brindisi:

It seems John wished to record some especial apparition of the Virgin for a lasting memorial when he wrote: A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

John speaks here of the Virgin Mother of God, according to the opinion of Epiphanius,4 Bernard,5 Rupert,6 and other Fathers. John himself seems to have implied this. No, rather, he seems to have expressed this as clearly as possible, for he says: She brought forth a male child, who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron.7 By these words he is without doubt describing Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords8 the Only-begotten Son of God and of the Virgin Mother of God. The Virgin Mother of God, the Mother of Christ, the Bride of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Mistress of the Angels, therefore, appeared to John clothed with celestial glory, resplendent with divine beauty and majesty: A great sign appeared in heaven.9

I think I get why the left hates Hindus, and always takes the Muslims side. Because Hindus won't assimilate, melt into this anti-diversity internationalism, they hold on to being Hindus and the movement of Indianness (Hindu is more than just the religion, which in Sanskrit is Sanatana Dharma, but the country of India, the Dharmic cultures and traditions) which is what Hindutva is about, Indianness, indigenous Indianness in the Indian land, an Indian nationalism. Islam to them is the battering ram against all nationalisms (except Arab nationalism). Islam too has international aspriations and one that rejects local diversity to bring everyone into the Islamic fold and make everyone into the image of one man who lived 1400 years ago, Mohammed.

The internationalism of the left is not about respecting diversity but destroying it, making everyone in the world the same under internationalism, no borders, no countries, no religions, only one leftist rule, and that is the left utopia.